2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com:
At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:
Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?
I don't think he would want to.
Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one
would have to imagine that Focardi himself
Michel Jullian wrote:
Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it?
No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work.
Or one would have to imagine that Focardi himself has been conned. Note
that multi-kW excess heat must be quite easy to fake in this
If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent?
Michel
2010/3/15, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:
Michel Jullian wrote:
Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it?
No. The authors are aware of this paper. It is really their work.
Or one
Robin
You have identified a missing link in my education - I was sure
a covalent bond released a photon in transferring to a lower energy state
just like an electron falling to a lower orbital. After Robin's comment
about 3body collisions I went looking for info on covalent bonds and
Michel Jullian wrote:
If they have equal shares in this work, why isn't Focardi on the patent?
I did not say they have equal shares. I have no idea how much each
contributed. I said I am sure Focardi knows about this paper.
Anyway, that patent seems worthless, for the reasons already discussed
Michel Jullian meant that the built-in built-in resistance heater
might go up to 3 kW. There is no other input power. The heater is
only needed to bring the temperature up to the temperature at which
the Ni reacts. I guess that would be the temperature at which it
readily absorbs hydrogen.
I
I wrote:
The Patterson light water cell demonstration . . . was made of
ridiculously low-budget, unreliable parts, and it failed drastically
in the middle of the demo, as I described in the report.
Cravens briefed me before I went to California, so I had some idea
what the demo was like. I
Notice the programmer's bias in this statement:
(With the siphon, the weight scale is tied into the computer which
records of the increase in weight of water, and you ignore the
periods when it suddenly decreases, and the siphon dumps out.)
Yes, the numbers on my screen are going down.
I wrote:
Anyway, this 80 W strikes me as odd, but that may only be a function
of my ignorance of this technique, and the lack of detail in the
paper. But what does this 80 W mean?
Maybe this means it takes only about 80 W to bring it up to the
operating temperature. That would mean the cell
This is off topic but it is related to technology, and to the latest
bruouhaha in the news. People have called into question the report
made by James Sikes that his Prius went out of control for several
miles. In the interest of disseminating technically accurate
information, here is a comment
At 01:46 AM 3/15/2010, you wrote:
2010/3/14 Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com:
At 02:35 AM 3/14/2010, you wrote:
Interesting, but why would Focardi discredit his own work?
I don't think he would want to.
Then it can't be a Ni-H research discrediting operation can it? Or one
would
Steven Krivit wrote:
My next question is how the whole buzz on this started...obviously
there was the Journal of Nuclear Physics Web site. But who
propagated that around? Anybody know?
The usual suspects. Me and many others. Anyone interested in cold
fusion will have heard about this by
Hold everything. I am wrong again. On p. 3 it says:
Some examples of the results obtained with this system (method A) in
brief periods (1-1,5 hours) are reported in lines 1-3 of the Table 1.
So, for the first experiment, 0.2 kWh over 1 to 1.5 hours is
somewhere between 133 to 200 W. So what
On 03/15/2010 06:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is off topic but it is related to technology, and to the latest
bruouhaha in the news. People have called into question the report
made by James Sikes that his Prius went out of control for several
miles. In the interest of disseminating
Wozniak also said that he thinks the problem is a software one, rather than a
mechanical one.
Cheers,
Lawry
On Mar 15, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is off topic but it is related to technology, and to the latest
bruouhaha in the news. People have called into question the
Lawrence de Bivort wrote:
Wozniak also said that he thinks the problem is a software one, rather than
a mechanical one.
[. . . teed up and . . .]
Yeah? Well he's a hardware guy.
As a software guy let me assure you it's gotta be a mechanical problem.
Seriously, there is no doubt that what
Okay, I got a gracious response from Focardi and Rossi. I have permission to
upload the paper. A low level of input power is needed, but they would
prefer not to discuss the details yet. It will be described in a new
publication soon.
Let's give them time to get their act together and not put
Also on this subject, perhaps it is time for Toyota to re-think their
advertising slogan: Moving Forward
- Jed
I looked up cryptozoology on wikipedia.
There is also entry for cryptobotany.
Perhaps we should start one for cryptophysics?!
Harry
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, March 15, 2010 11:57:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC Wozniak reports Prius problem
http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2008/08/cryptophysicists.html
__
Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8.
Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at
LOL
On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Also on this subject, perhaps it is time for Toyota to re-think their
advertising slogan: Moving Forward
- Jed
21 matches
Mail list logo
